Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs T complained that a car acquired through CA AUTO FINANCE UK LTD under a PCP agreement in May 2024 was not of satisfactory quality due to persistent battery, electrical, and ECU faults. She sought rejection of the car, termination of the finance agreement, and refund of payments made while the car could not be driven. CA AUTO rejected the complaint, attributing initial battery issues to improper charging by Mrs T and noting the car had been driven 6,500 miles without major issues after repairs. The ombudsman considered evidence from two independent inspection reports commissioned by Mrs T and one CPR35-compliant report commissioned by CA AUTO. The ombudsman preferred CA AUTO's independent engineer's conclusion that the current faults resulted from a car accident in August 2025 and subsequent repairs, not from manufacturing defects present at supply. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies goods must be of satisfactory quality. Where a fault is identified within six months, it is presumed present at supply unless the supplier proves otherwise. However, the ombudsman found that while faults were clearly present at the time of inspection, the evidence did not establish these faults were present or developing at the point of supply. The ombudsman preferred the CPR35-compliant independent report commissioned by CA AUTO, which concluded: (1) initial battery issues were caused by improper charging by Mrs T, not manufacturing defect; (2) the current fault (loss of power while driving) is a separate issue unrelated to the initial fault; and (3) the current fault most likely resulted from the August 2025 accident and subsequent repairs, particularly given the proximity of high-voltage battery components to the damaged N/S B-pillar. The ombudsman noted Mrs T had driven 8,000 miles without major issues after the initial charging problem was resolved, and problems only recurred post-accident. The ombudsman rejected Mrs T's inspection reports as lacking CPR35 compliance and failing to provide evidence-based opinions on fault presence at point of supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website